Comments on: No en banc hearing; Prop 8 case’s next stop: Supreme Courthttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbySat, 23 Dec 2017 10:44:32 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.3By: Andrewhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291#comment-125410
Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:12:19 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45291#comment-125410In the meantime, please please please keep spending the Church’s money on this. By all means, between this and paying for all the child rape, perhaps the bankrupted dioceses will reconsider how they choose to leverage the donations of their hard working church members.
]]>By: iDavidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291#comment-125368
Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:24:01 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45291#comment-125368Out of 25 judges en banc, 21 said “no” to hearing the case, with 3 out if 4 that voted “yes” to hearing the case, writing descents.
Council in support of Prop 8 laments: “Perhaps the most positive news from today’s decision is that the court has stayed the decision up to and including the time that the United States Supreme Court finally decides this case,” Pugno said in a brief statement. “We will promptly file our appeal to the nation’s highest court and look forward to a positive outcome on behalf of the millions of Californians who believe in traditional marriage.”
Though I can’t imagine the SC taking a case where approx 24/5 fed circuit judges have given thumbs down, I will be very interested to see if Pugno keeps his word and files “promptly” w SCOTUS.
With no new “evidence” in Pugno’s pockets, it seems he is doing nothing more than crying over losing his shirt and is poutingly resentful towards the courts rather than actually thinking of providing justice for all Americans.
If he wants to continue to fall on his own dagger, he is certainly having a perfect martyr moment.
]]>By: customartisthttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291#comment-125365
Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:51:13 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45291#comment-125365Email to CNN:

Hello,
I am concerned that your repeated airing this morning of the Prop 8 trial rezults include one significant clip of a Drag Queen/Painted-Faced Nun, RATHER THAN Lawyers, Judges, Photos of Litigants, etc.

Who made this decision?

Is this really what CNN sees as representative to this important legal case?

This is completely derrogatory and non-representative of the actual events. Please do not ridicule that which should be serious reporting?

That is, one could uphold the constitutionality of DOMA, especially sections protecting state’s rights, but find against Prop 8 based on the specific circumstances (rights taken away from a targeted minority by plebecite).

In that vein, I think it’s entirely possible that the SCOTUS will punt on Prop 8, because it doesn’t settle and larger issues, and focus instead on the DOMA cases as they come up. The upshot of that might well be legalized gay marriage in CA and a firebreak for the remainder of the country where SSM is not desired. I have no idea what will happen for federal marriage, but, again, that has nothing to do with 8. I think the court will sever and fail to hear the case.

Stay tuned kids – the loss in WI today to me signals that Dems are in serious trouble come November. If we revert to a GOP administration again, with the Dems reluctant to wield minority power the way that the GOP does in the Senate, I’m very concerned that we could see 2+ SCOTUS seats handed to ultraconservatives, especially if it’s during Romney’s first term as he positions himself for re-election.

]]>By: iDavidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291#comment-125300
Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:38:33 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45291#comment-125300I have to agree that it is highly likely that SCOTUS will punt, there isn’t much meat for them with this situation. If they punt it does set a precident for fed circuit courts if another state tries to remove gay marriage per referendum once granted.
It would then leave Olsen and Bois open to go grab a nasty backwater low brow antagonistic State, (do I hear NC as a recommendation coming from the angels on high?) to assert via SCOTUS a direct and deadly blow to the gay marriage issue once and for all.
That won’t be so easy if Obama loses, but it should be a cakewalk if he wins, which I believe he will.
Truly interesting times.
]]>By: CPT_Doomhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291#comment-125273
Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:12:26 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45291#comment-125273If the SC punts on Perry, they are still equating the Prop 8 decision with the Romer decision, which is still a big step. If they then take the MA DOMA case – on the issue of federal recognition of state marriages only – and agree, there would be a significant blow to the anti-equality forces, without the full blown “marriage must be equal” ruling the SC may be concerned about making.

That would leave full equality for another day, while strengthening the hand of the forces of equality. I could easily see Olson and Boies then finding a case in a state with an Amendment passed without a court finding in favor of gays, to extend the Perry ruling to all states. That might be more to the SC’s taste for not pushing social change.

]]>By: Lucrecehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291#comment-125268
Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:25:29 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45291#comment-125268It would be sad if Perry were punted — it’s the best case with the best advocates arguing a gay rights case.
]]>By: Mark F.http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/05/45291#comment-125266
Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:18:01 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45291#comment-125266It’s quite possible they will punt on this case. However, I don’t think they will punt on the DOMA case also headed their way. We live in interesting times…
]]>